Ram Nath Chadha v. State of Punjab & Anr

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1.    Present  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  dated

31.07.2015  passed  by  the  learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Pathankot, whereby  respondent  No.2  (herein)  was  acquitted  from  the  charge  under Section 306 of the IPC by granting him the benefit of doubt.

2.    In the present appeal, the pertinent facts for adjudication are that  the  FIR  No.09,  dated  15.03.2014,  was  lodged  against  the  accused-respondent  No.  2,  namely  Davinder  Singh  S/o  Kartar  Singh,  resident  of village Chak Bhariyan, Tehsil and District Pathankot, under Section 306 of the  Indian  Penal  Code  (for  brevity  the  'IPC')  at  Police  Station  Sadar, Pathankot.  The  matter  proceeded  to  trial  before  the  Court  of  learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot, which concluded its proceedings and, vide  judgment  dated  31.07.2015,  acquitted  the  accused  (respondent  No.2 herein) of all the charges. The Court below held that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution does not meet the necessary standards laid-down under Section 306 of the IPC.  Given the insufficiency of credible evidence, there is significant doubt regarding the involvement of the accused in the

CRA-AS-5-2016             2

alleged offence & hence he ought to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.

3.    The appellant, aggrieved by the findings of the Court below, has  now  invoked  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  this  Court,  seeking  re-examination  of  the  findings  as  the  same  are  based  on  alleged  mis-appreciation of evidence and procedural irregularities. However, it is well-settled  law  that  the  scope  in  appeal  is  limited  and  does  not  entail  a  re-appreciation of evidence unless there is a manifest illegality or a serious miscarriage of justice.

4.    In brief, the case of the prosecution, as detailed in the FIR, is that on 11.03.2014, Smt. Kamlesh Chadha (PW-2), mother of the deceased-Bhawna,  submitted a  complaint (Ex.P-6)  to the  Senior  Superintendent of Police, Pathankot, requesting the registration of a case under Sections 302 and 306 of IPC against the husband of the deceased namely Davinder Singh (respondent  No.2  herein),  his  parents  Kanta  Devi  and  Kartar  Singh,  his brother Nardev Rana and his sister-in-law Shubh Kumari.  She alleged that her daughter was harassed by her in-laws, and her father-in-law had made inappropriate advances.  Despite complaints of the deceased-Bhawna, her husband and her mother-in-law were unresponsive, compelling her to file a domestic  violence  case,  which  was  dismissed  due  to  the  death  of  the advocate.  A  handwritten  note  from  the  deceased  Bhawna  described  the mental  and  physical  abuse  she  endured.    On  04.02.2014,  the  deceased suffered severe burns and while hospitalized, the Judicial Magistrate could not record her statement due to her critical condition.  Deceased-Bhawna succumbed to the burn injuries on 07.02.2014.  The complainant alleged that 2024.11.21 16:12 her  daughter  was  burned  by  her  husband  and  in-laws  but  police  did  not

CRA-AS-5-2016             3

record  her  statement  as  the  deceased  was  still  alive.    Furthermore,  on

15.03.2014, SI Raj Kumar (PW-13) received DDR entry no.18 (EX.PW-7/G) and led an inquiry, where it emerged that Davinder Singh (respondent No.2 herein) frequently beat deceased-Bhawna, leading her to set herself on fire after an arguments.  A formal FIR under Section 306 of the IPC was filed against the accused Davinder Singh (respondent No.2 herein).  SI Raj Kumar (PW-13) continued investigation and continued collecting evidence from the house of the accused Davinder Singh (respondent No.2 herein), including  burned  items  and  photographs  and  documented  the  site.    On

02.04.2014,  the  mother  of  the  deceased  i.e.  complainant  later  moved  an application dated 28.03.2014 (EX.P-5) before the SSP, Pathankot requesting for reinvestigation and seeking to add parents of respondent No.2-Davinder Singh and his brother as co-accused, but after further/detailed inquiry, these family members were found to be uninvolved.  The investigation concluded with  accused  Davinder  Singh  being  charged  with  abetting  suicide  of deceased  Bhawna.  On  completion  of  necessary  formalities,  report  under Section  173  of  the  Cr.P.C.,  1973  was  submitted  before  the  Court  of competent jurisdiction.

5.    Learned counsel for the appellant has iterated that the Court below has erred in acquitting the accused-respondent No.2 and the impugned order is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. Learned counsel has further iterated that the trial Court did not give sufficient consideration to the fact  that  deceased-Bhawana,  had  previously  filed  a  complaint  under  the Prevention  of  Women  from  Domestic  Violence  Act,  2005.    In  the  said complaint, she accused her husband (respondent No.2 herein) and his family 2024.11.21 16:12 members of domestic violence.  According to learned counsel, the claims of

CRA-AS-5-2016             4

the deceased were duly supported by witness testimonies from her relatives, including her brother and parents.  However, the trial Court dismissed this aspect without a solid justification.  It has been further argued that the trial Court has dismissed the case under the Domestic Violence Act, asserting that the allegations in the complaint were influenced by legal advice and therefore  needed  to  be  proven.    However,  the  Court  below  did  not adequately  consider that the complaint was  filed  by  the deceased  herself while she was still alive, clearly indicating that she faced harassment from her  husband  (respondent  No.2  herein)  and  in-laws.    It  has  been  further submitted  that  the  eyewitness  account  is  supported  by  medical  evidence provided by PW-9 i.e. Dr. Ratesh Jaswal of Ravi Hospital, Pathankot who testified that the deceased was admitted in the emergency with burn injuries covering 65-70% of her body.  It has been further argued that the Court below ought to have considered these incriminating circumstances, yet the Court below has failed to properly appreciate them and acquitted the accused on  flimsy  grounds.    It  has  been  further  argued  that  the  prosecution  has brought sufficient and cogent evidence on record to prove that the deceased she was being maltreated by the accused prior to her death.  It has been further submitted that the statements of the material prosecution witnesses were  consistent  and  credible,  yet  the  Court  below  has  failed  to  properly appreciate it and acquitted the accused on flimsy grounds.  Learned counsel asserts  that  the  Court  below  has  dealt  the  matter  in  superficial  manner without proper consideration of the evidence.  Learned counsel has further canvassed that the Court below has wrongly acquitted the accused, despite there being sufficient evidence on record to establish his guilt and hence his 2024.11.21 16:12 acquittal is not justified in light of the evidence presented.

CRA-AS-5-2016             5

6.    At  the  outset,  it  is  pertinent  to  mention  herein  that  in adjudicating  an  appeal  against  an  order  of  acquittal,  the  appellate  court operates within a narrowly circumscribed framework. It is a settled legal principle that acquittal by a trial court carries a presumption of innocence, further  strengthened  by  the  trial  court's  findings.  The  appellate  court  is precluded from engaging in a wholesale reappreciation or reassessment of evidence  unless  the  conclusions  drawn  by  the  trial  court  are  patently perverse,  unreasonable,  or  unsupported  by  the  record.  The  principles governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal against the  judgment of  acquittal, have  been  laid down by  the  Hon'ble  Supreme Court  in  the  judgment  passed  in  the  case  titled  as  Babu SahebagoudaRudragoudar  and  others  versus  State  of  Karnataka,  2024 INSC 320 ? 2024(2) Law Herald (SC) 928 held as under: "39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an Appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:-

(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

(b)  That  the  same  is  based  on  a  misreading/omission  to  consider material evidence on record;

(c)  That  no  two  reasonable  views  are  possible  and  only  the  view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record." Thus, the present appeal must be examined in context and after drawing guidance from the aforementioned principles.

7.    The allegations in the present case relate to abetment of suicide as defined under Section 306 IPC. The law governing Section 306 of the IPC is well settled. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-

CRA-AS-5-2016             6

"306  .Abetment of suicide. ?If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." Thus,  the  basic  ingredients  to  constitute  an  offence  under Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. Abetment of a thing is defined under Section 107 of the IPC as under:- "107.   Abetment of a thing.? A person abets the doing of a thing, who? First. ? Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.?  Engages  with  one  or  more  other  person  or  persons  in  any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.? Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation  1.?  A  person  who  by  wilful  misrepresentation,  or  by  wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.? Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

7.1.    Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. There should be AJAY KUMAR evidence  capable  of  suggesting  that  the  accused  intended  by  such  act  to

CRA-AS-5-2016             7

!nst!#ate  the  de)eased  to  )omm!t  su!)!de.  Jnless  the  !n#red!ents  of !nst!#at!on8abetment  to  )omm!t  su!)!de  are  sat!sf!ed$  a))used  )annot  be )on1!)ted under Se)t!on 30+ ,PC. 3he Con5ble Supreme Court !n ,de S-ngh & 'thers v( State o" Har)ana% (20*9) *+ SCC 30*$ held that !n order to )on1!)t  an  a))used  under  Se)t!on  30+  of  the  ,PC$  the  state  of  m!nd  to )omm!t a part!)ular )r!me must be 1!s!ble &!th re#ard to determ!n!n# the )ulpab!l!ty. ,t &as obser1ed as under:< "16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four'corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self'esteem and self'respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of 2024.11.21 16:12 abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in

CRA-AS-5-2016             D

such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."

7.2.    3hus$ !t !s to be borne !n m!nd that !n )ases of alle#ed abetment of su!)!de$ there must be proof of d!re)t or !nd!re)t a)ts of !n)!tement to the )omm!ss!on of su!)!de. 9erely on the alle#at!on of harassment &!thout the!r be!n# any pos!t!1e a)t!on pro>!mate to the t!me of o))urren)e on the part of the a))used &h!)h led or )ompelled the person to )omm!t su!)!de$ )on1!)t!on !n terms of Se)t!on 30+ ,PC !s not susta!nable.   prof!table referen)e !n th!s re#ard )an be made to a jud#ment passed by the Con5ble Supreme Court !n )ase t!tled as N-/un 0ne1a and others vs( State o" ,ttar 2radesh ? Neutral C-tat-on No(2024 INSC +.+% rele1ant &hereof reads as under: "21. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Further, as the extreme action of committing suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two broad categories. First, where the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity. In the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to AJAY KUMAR commit suicide, e.g., when there is relation of husband and wife, mother

CRA-AS-5-2016             .

and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In the case of second category the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official relationship. The reason being different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations.

¶22The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide. Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a full' fledged trial. The problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation. For example, whether the accused had the common intention under Section 34 of the IPC could be gathered only after a full'fledged trial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as regards the genesis of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapon used, the role played by the accused etc. However, in cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself. The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand and appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family members of the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their part if they decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police. However, it is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them.I D.    ,n the l!#ht of the abo1e pr!n)!ples la!d do&n by the Con5ble Supreme Court$ , ha1e thou#htfully )ons!dered the ar#uments ad1an)ed on

CRA-AS-5-2016             10

behalf  of  the  appellant,  perused  the  entire  case  record  and  the  judgment passed by the learned Court below.

9.    While going through the records of the case, it appears that the prosecution  has  failed  to  satisfactorily  discharge  its  burden  of  proof  by presenting credible and reliable evidence or witnesses. It is a well-settled principle of law that the burden rests upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused through cogent and convincing evidence, and any failure to do so entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt. The case put forth by the prosecution is riddled with material discrepancies, as discussed below, that substantially undermine its credibility and foundational strength.

10.    At the outset it will be apposite to consider the main thrust of the prosecution case as revealed from the evidence on record for deciding the culpability of the accused in the incident in question. As per the case put forth by the prosecution, it was alleged that on 04.02.2014, PW-1 Ram Nath Chadha  (father  of  the  deceased)  had  received  a  telephonic  call  from  the accused  Davinder  Singh  (respondent  No.2  herein)  that  his  daughter (deceased) had set herself on fire by pouring kerosene on herself.  She had suffered severe burn injuries and was admitted to Ravi Hospital, Pathankot. He alongwith his family arrived at the hospital around noon and seeing the critical condition of her daughter Bhawna (deceased), she was transferred to DMC  Hospital,  Ludhiana  where  she  succumbed  to  the  burn  injuries  on

07.02.2014.  PW-1 Ram Nath Chadha, PW-2 Kamlesh Chadha (parents of the  deceased)  and  PW-3  Bhuvesh  Chadha  (brother  of  the  deceased), described the circumstances that led to suicide by the deceased and levelled allegations  against  accused  Davinder  Singh  and  his  family  members  for 2024.11.21 16:12 abetting the commission of suicide by the deceased Bhawna.  In order to

CRA-AS-5-2016             11

establish the cause of death of deceased Bhawna, the prosecution examined three witnesses, firstly PW-9 Dr. Ritesh Jaiswal, Ravi Hospital, Pathankot, who testified that on 04.02.2014 at about 10:45 am, deceased Bhawana was admitted  in  emergency  with  burn  injuries;  secondly,  PW-4  Dr.  Bharti Tanwar, Daya Nand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana, who deposed that on 04.02.2014, the deceased Bhawna was brought with history of 80-85% burn with inhalational injury and shock.  He further asserted that the deceased  was  under  treatment  and  kept  on  ventilator  support  but  she ultimately died on 07.02.2014 due to septicemia and inhalational injury due to burns, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, thirdly, PW-12 Dr. Bhupinder Singh, who brought the record pertaining to post-mortem examination of deceased Bhawna, which was got conducted at Civil Hospital, Pathankot by Dr. Sucha Ram.

10.1.    While outlining the case of the prosecution, it appears that the first  statement  after  the  death  of  the  deceased  Bhawna  was  recorded  on

08.02.2014  in  which  PW-1  Ram  Nath  Chadha,  father  of  the  deceased informed the Police that his daughter had died due to mental distress and he did not implicate anyone.  The Police also recorded the statements of brother of the Bhawna and a joint statement from her relatives, who supported the statement as given by PW-1 Ram Nath Chadha.  The allegations of abetment and instigation against the accused and his family surfaced on 11.03.2014, when  Kamlesh  Chadha  (PW-2),  mother  of  the  deceased,  filed  a  written complaint with the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pathankot, accusing the respondent No.2 and his family of abetting her daughter's death.  During the trial,  the  prosecution  presented  testimony  from  PW-1  Ram  Nath  Chadha 2024.11.21 16:12 (father of the deceased), PW-2 Kamlesh Chadha (mother of the deceased)

CRA-AS-5-2016             12

and PW-3 Bhuvnesh Chadha (brother of the deceased), who detailed the circumstances leading to suicide by Bhawna by iterating that the accused (respondent No.2 herein) and his family were maltreating the deceased and pressurized her for dowry; her husband Davinder Singh (respondent No.2) is a habitual drunkard and used to beat the deceased under the influence of liquor.  The facts and circumstances of the case indicate that the prosecution version has been significantly altered between 04.02.2014, when deceased Bhawna  was  hospitalized  and  11.03.2014,  when  a  formal  complaint  was filed.  On 08.02.2014, the key/star prosecution witnesses initially stated to the Police that the deceased Bhawna had committed suicide due to mental distress and that no one was responsible.  However, over a period of month after  the  death  of  the  deceased  Bhawna,  these  witnesses  changed  their statements  and  implicated  the  husband  of  the  deceased  and  his  family members, accusing them of abetting her suicide. Surprisingly, the key/star prosecution witnesses introduced a new version of events altogether within a month after their initial statements were made. The explanation furnished by these witnesses for the change of version is that their signatures were taken on the blank papers by the accused by claiming that they were taken for the receipt of the body of the deceased or due to language barriers.  But the same were  contradicted  by  other  prosecution  witnesses  which  raised  serious doubts about the veracity of their claims. Those witnesses stated that the initial  statements  on  08.02.2014,  were  voluntarily  given  and  signed  to confirm their accuracy. However, no evidence has come on record which would suggest that the initial statements of these key witnesses were falsely recorded.  Moreover,  the  mother  of  the  deceased  namely  PW-2  Kamlesh 2024.11.21 16:12 Chadha,  claimed  that  her  joint  statement  (Ex.D-3)  was  without  her

CRA-AS-5-2016             13

signatures but PW-7 ASI Satish Kumar affirmed that it was indeed signed by her and the other parties.

10.2.    It was further the case of the prosecution that the maltreatment of  the  deceased  was  revealed  to  them  only  after  08.02.2014,  when  the documents pertaining to domestic violence or handwritten note of Bhawna were  recovered.    However,  this  claim  is  weakened  as  from  the  prior statements  of  the  star  witnesses  namely  Kamlesh  Chadha  (PW2)  and Bhuvnesh  Chadha  (PW3),  they  alleged  that  the  deceased  Bhawna  had narrated  them  the  story  of  involvement  of  accused  at  Ravi  Hospital  on

04.02.2014.  This  inconsistency  in  the  statements  of  the  aforesaid  star witnesses raised questions as to why they attributed the death of deceased Bhawna solely to mental distress on 08.02.2014, without mentioning any abuse by the accused or without fault of anybody and hence cast an adverse impact on the truthfulness of prosecution story.

10.3.    Furthermore, the family of the deceased was very well aware of the  alleged  mistreatment  prior  to  her  death  but  they  failed  to  disclose  it initially  and  the  later  statements  represent  a  significant  shift  in  their narrative.  These  substantial  alteration/discrepancies  undermine  the credibility of the case of the prosecution and it fails to meet the standard of proving the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and casts a significant element of doubt regarding the alleged incident in question and potentially weakened the case of the prosecution. It is apt to mention herein that where more than one witness make similar assertions during the course of investigation on a particular  point  and  uniformly  improve  upon  the  version  in  an  identical manner, then it shows that the improvements are designed and purposeful. 2024.11.21 16:12 Such improvements are not innocent and go to show that the witnesses have

CRA-AS-5-2016             14

purposefully  and  designedly  made  the  improvements.  Such  designed  and purposeful  improvements  not  only  undermines  the  credibility  of  such witnesses but shatter the whole foundation of prosecution story when the witnesses as well as the facts with respect to which improvement has been made, are material in nature.  A witness must provide clear and convincing explanations for any changes or improvements made to its testimony. If it fails to justify such alterations, it raises questions about its reliability and truthfulness.  Unexplained or unjustified  changes  may  suggest  fabrication, inconsistency, or an intent to mislead.

11.    The argument put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the accused maltreating the deceased under the influence of liquor due to dowry demands lacks persuasive merit.  While PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 had testified before the trial Court that the accused was habitual drinker and subjected the deceased to cruelty under the influence of alcohol, there claims are not supported by substantial evidence.  There is no prior record of any complaint against the accused Davinder Singh or his family members regarding  this  alleged  excessive  drinking  or  maltreatment  of  deceased Bhawna over dowry demands, nor there is any corroborating evidence to substantiate these allegations.  The absence of any previous complaint or evidence concerning such behavior weakens the credibility of the allegations made  by  these  key  prosecution  witnesses.  Given  the  lack  of  complaints regarding the maltreatment, the recent claims appear to be unsubstantiated and raised question about their reliability and hence cannot be given due weightage.  The  cumulative  evidence  points  to  the  improbability  of  the version of the prosecution and it can be safely inferred that the prosecution 2024.11.21 16:12 has  failed  to  prove  that  the  deceased  was  under  pressure  on  account  of

CRA-AS-5-2016             15

maltreatment  by  the  accused.  In  cases  involving  serious  accusations  like dowry harassment, it is essential to present credible evidence to support the claims.  The fact that the deceased was a government teacher, an educated and financially independent woman, adds significant weight to the analysis of  the  case.  It  is  highly  improbable  that  someone  in  her  position  would silently  endure  prolonged  abusive  behavior  without  either  reporting  the matter  to  authorities  or  taking  some  definitive  action.  Her  status  as  an educated professional suggests that she would likely be aware of her rights and the available legal remedies to address such issues, making the absence of  any  prior  complaint  or  documentation  of  the  alleged  maltreatment particularly striking. This lack of action or record raises questions about the credibility of the prosecution's case. It becomes essential for the prosecution to  provide  substantial  evidence  to  substantiate  the  allegations  of  dowry harassment and maltreatment by the accused. Mere oral testimonies, without corroborating material or circumstantial evidence, fail to inspire confidence in  the  prosecution's  claims.  The  prosecution  bears  the  responsibility  of proving  the  allegations  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  ensuring  that  the evidence presented is both credible and consistent.

12.    The  allegations  with  regard  to  giving  of  Rs.2.00  lacs  to  the accused in order to purchase the car as also the demand of jeep remains unsubstantiated as the prosecution has miserably failed to lead any cogent evidence in this regard and hence it can safely be inferred that the deceased was not maltreated or pressurized on account of such demands.

13.      The prosecution heavily emphasized on an application filed by the  deceased  Bhawna  under  the  Protection  of  Women  from  Domestic 2024.11.21 16:12 Violence  Act,  2005,  wherein  she  alleged  her  husband  Davinder  Singh

CRA-AS-5-2016             16

(respondent No.2 herein) and his family of indulging in domestic violence and specifically alleging that her father-in-law made inappropriate advances towards her. However, the accused and his family members had denied these claims in their response. As per the legal principles, the allegations in the pleadings need to be substantiated with coherent and consistent evidence & unverified claims alone are insufficient for a criminal conviction.

14.    The reliance by the prosecution on the purported handwritten note allegedly written by deceased Bhawna wherein she levelled allegations against her husband and other family members of maltreatment remained unsubstantiated before the Court below as no efforts were made to verify the handwriting of the deceased.

15.    The  glaring  inconsistency  of  the  key  prosecution  witnesses directly  impacts  the  credibility  and  the  case  of  the  prosecution.    Such discrepancies cannot be lightly overlooked as they strike at the very root of the  prosecution's  narrative  and  reliability  of  the  evidence  presented.    In criminal  jurisprudence,  where  the  burden  of  proof  lies  squarely  on  the prosecution  to  establish  the  guilt  beyond  the  reasonable  doubt,  the contradicting/conflicting  statement  of  star  prosecution  witnesses significantly undermine the ability of the prosecution to prove the charges conclusively and potentially warranting an acquittal of the accused by giving him  the  benefit  of  doubt.    Moreover,  there  is  no  reasonable  explanation forthcoming either from the evidence produced by the prosecution or records of the case or from the averments made in the present appeal, on the aspect of alterations/contradictions.

16.    It is a well established principle in criminal jurisprudence that 2024.11.21 16:12 the  burden  of  proof  rests  squarely  upon  the  prosecution,  which  must

CRA-AS-5-2016             17

establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Any failure to meet  this  standard,  particularly  when  key  evidence  is  either  missing  or questionable,  entitled  the  accused  to  the  benefit  of  doubt.  It  has  been consistently held that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute for proof, and where there exists any reasonable doubt, the benefit of such doubt must be given to the accused and he must be acquitted in accordance with law. In light of the above discussed discrepancies and inconsistencies, it can safely be inferred that the case put forth by the prosecution is false and there is no evidence of the alleged incident as projected by the complainant. Where the prosecution has failed to substantiate its case beyond reasonable doubt, as has happened in the case in hand, the defence, if any, raised/pleaded by the accused recedes into the background and rather becomes immaterial.

17.    The legal framework under Section 306 IPC mandates that to sustain a conviction for abetment of suicide, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused played a direct and active role in instigating, provoking, or compelling the deceased to take their own life. The evidence  must  clearly  demonstrate  that  the  accused  engaged  in  specific, overt acts of incitement or provided such alarming encouragement that the deceased was left with no reasonable alternative but to commit suicide. This legal  standard  underscores  the  necessity  of  proving  a  proximate  and unambiguous  connection  between  the  conduct  of  the  accused  and  the decision of the deceased to end their life. In the present case, as detailed in the preceding discussion, the prosecution has utterly failed to satisfy this burden of proof. The evidence on record does not establish any clear or cogent  link  between  the  accused's  actions  and  the  deceased's  decision  to 2024.11.21 16:12 commit  suicide.  Mere  allegations  or  circumstantial  evidence,  without

CRA-AS-5-2016             18

substantive proof of instigation or a direct nexus, are insufficient to sustain a charge  under  Section  306  IPC.  Thus,  the  prosecution's  inability  to demonstrate any act of incitement or compelling conduct by the accused renders its case untenable, and the charge of abetment of suicide cannot be sustained  in  law.  However,  as  has  been  noted  by  the  learned  Additional Sessions Judge, while passing the judgment of acquittal, in concluding para of the judgment held that the prosecution falls short of the requirement under Sections 306 of IPC and hence the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal.  In  the  instant  case,  the  prosecution  has  miserably  failed  to discharge its liability.

18.    In the facts and circumstances of the entire case coupled with the  presence  of  multiple  lacunae  as  also  inconsistencies  in  the  case,  the learned Additional Sessions Judge, rightly arrived at the conclusion that the story  put  forth  by  the  prosecution  was  untrustworthy  and  the  allegations raised lack substance.

19.    The facts of the case clearly narrate that the prosecution has tried to conceal the real genesis of the case.  However, the Court below has meticulously and judiciously examined the matter, appreciating the facts and evidence in their proper context.  The Court below has rightly discerned the attempt  of  the  prosecution  to  distort  the  narrative  and  has  delivered  the findings based on through evaluation of the material on record.

20.    Perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below shows that the entire evidence led by the prosecution has been gone through in detail and in a painstaking manner and has dealt with each and  every  aspect  of  the  case  in  a  pragmatic  manner.    The  judgment  of 2024.11.21 16:12 acquittal is based on sound reasoning; does not suffer from any illegality or

CRA-AS-5-2016             19

perversity. As such, the judgment of acquittal dated 31.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot, is upheld.  Resultantly, the present appeal, being bereft of merits, fails and is dismissed.

21.    Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

November 18, 2024 Ajay

CRA-AS-5-2016 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 CRA-AS-5-2016 Date of decision: 18.11.2024 Ram Nath Chadha ....Appellant V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. APS Virk, Advocate for the appellant. *****